The Election

I posted the following earlier today at ALPB Forum Online in response to comments on the topic "Election followup." Pastor Zip

I picked up reading long before starting Kindergarten in 1964.

One of my books (which I probably read a couple of hundred times) was a child's biography of President Kennedy, which in addition to lots of pictures told of his ancestry and childhood, schooling, service on PT 109, Congressional and Senate campaigns as a Democrat (running against the Republican Henry Cabot Lodge), marriage to Jackie and their children (who were about my age), and his election as our first Catholic President. I don't recall whether it included his assassination, but I certainly read his story many, many times remembering that and his funeral on TV. Whether it was part of the book or not, I knew at age 4 that his story ended in tragedy.

Even then I knew my parents were not Democrats. They had not supported JFK in '60 and would not have supported him in '64. And these were not unusual perspectives in the West San Fernando Valley of the 1960s. But they taught their young boy to respect the President of the United States and admire his accomplishments and good qualities. Even if you didn't agree with him. Even if you worked to oppose something he wanted to do.

And as I've seen and heard reactions these last few days to the election here, and on the news, and on my Facebook feed, I've thought about that book a lot. Thankfully.

"You are witnesses of these things..."

From the ALPB Forum Online thread "A Blessed Ascension Day":

Last evening was the 15th consecutive year the Ascension of Our Lord was observed at Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church of Peoria on the Feast Day.

Our typical practice as been what Frank Senn describes as Cathedral Vespers and the Eucharist, using Evening Prayer and Holy Communion Setting III of LBW. He reports this as a better alternative to using parts of Vespers to replace the entrance rite for Holy Communion by letting each liturgy stand on its own, rather than asking it to do something else.

Vespers includes the Lucinarium (at 7pm) with procession, during which all worshipers are invited to light their own candles, Pslam 141, and the Litany. At its "Amen", the organist offers a Prelude (giving me time to change from choir dress into Eucharistic vestments when I'm the celebrant). The eucharistic procession is to the Gloria in excelsis, omitting only the Psalmody and the Prayer of the Church while following the rest of Setting III.

We, too, are not air-conditioned, so while I had been able to get the church down to 75 F in the morning -- think "brick oven" in these longer, warmer, sunny days -- it was 82 in the late afternoon when I noticed the organist perspiring as she practiced the liturgy, so I turned the ceiling and exhaust fans up and brought in a couple more to get the air moving. It's not too bad, but the acolytes aren't used to the air moving quite that much!

We specifically invited not only our sister Conference congregations (which we've always done), but all ELCA full communion partner congregations within the greater Peoria area -- that adds up to over 60 congregations --, got the word out to at least some in the Via de Cristo community (noting particularly that the preacher, the Synod's Director for Evangelical Mission, had been a spiritual director for last month's Three Days), and even got a notice in Sunday's Journal Star. Still, it's a Thursday evening at the end of May, on the South Side of Peoria, conflicting with some graduations and the community theatre.

23 in attendance (on the lower side for Ascension and a guest preacher) from 8-9 different congregations. (Some of our "regulars" had other commitments.) The Gospel was proclaimed, the Sacrament was administered, the world was raised in prayer. And, as is typical at Zion, it's a good hour or more after the Dismissal before we can put away the remaining cookies, clean up the coffee and juice, and I can finally lock the doors and retire for the evening.

Come, Holy Spirit...

When Righteous Indignation Is a Red Herring

The news media and politicos have been scrambling all over themselves in righteous indignation over Congressman Todd Akin's poorly-expressed (that's putting it mildly) comments on rape and pregnancy. In all the commentary I've seen and heard, though, no one seems to be talking about the actual babies who are conceived in such circumstances (which until this week both pro-lifers and pro-abortion advocates were insisting was very rare). The unstated, but clear, sentiment has been that, of course, abortion is the righteous response.

Yesterday afternoon Judie Brown, President of the American Life League, offered a more truthful commentary on this week's talk in:

Assault on Akin is Pro-Abortion Red Herring

It is astounding that the media has created such a circus over the awkward comments of Congressman Todd Akin on the subject of "legitimate rape."

While I am not quite sure what he meant to say, I can guess that he was attempting to define an actual criminal act in contrast to the rape claims sometimes attributed to dating experiences gone wrong, when the female in question changes her mind and decides she never said yes in the first place.

Regardless, that is not the point. Akin's position is that when a child is conceived as the result of a criminal sexual assault on a woman, the baby should not have to pay for the sins of his father by dying a violent death at the hands of an abortionist.

This is really not about Akin at all; it is about the red herring that pro-abortion forces have used for years to define genuine pro-life apologists as zealots, fanatics and unrealistic Pollyannas.

For my money, being squarely out in front in defense of preborn children is precisely the right place to be, whether your name is Akin, Ryan or Obama. This is not about political posturing; it is about truth. Preborn children are always and in every case worthy of our respect, no matter how they were created.

Personally, I am grateful that Akin brought the snakes out of their pit so that we can see clearly who they are and what their game is. Bring it on.

Hat tip to David Becker at ALPB Forum Online.

Open Letter: Free Exercise of Religion

The following was issued Thursday by the leaders of several religious communities in the United States, including the Presidents/Bishops of four Lutheran church bodies. Written by the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, he also offers this video introduction. Pastor Zip

Hat tip to Fr. William Weedon at ALPB Forum Online.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION:
Putting Beliefs into Practice

An Open Letter from Religious Leaders
in the United States to All Americans
June 21, 2012

Dear Friends,

Religious institutions are established because of religious beliefs and convictions. Such institutions include not only churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, but also schools and colleges, shelters and community kitchens, adoption agencies and hospitals, organizations that provide care and services during natural disasters, and countless other organizations that exist to put specific religious beliefs into practice. Many such organizations have provided services and care to both members and non-members of their religious communities since before the Revolutionary War, saving and improving the lives of count- less American citizens.

As religious leaders from a variety of perspectives and communities, we are compelled to make known our protest against the incursion of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious liberty. HHS has mandated that religious institutions, with only a narrow religious exception, must provide access to certain contraceptive benefits, even if the covered medications or procedures are contradictory to their beliefs. We who oppose the application of this mandate to religious institutions include not only the leaders of religious groups morally opposed to contraception, but also leaders of other religious groups that do not share that particular moral conviction.

That we share an opposition to the mandate to religious institutions while disagreeing about specific moral teachings is a crucial fact. Religious freedom is the principle on which we stand. Because of differing understandings of moral and religious authority, people of good will can and often do come to different conclusions about moral questions. Yet, even we who hold differing convictions on specific moral issues are united in the conviction that no religious institution should be penalized for refusing to go against its beliefs. The issue is the First Amendment, not specific moral teachings or specific products or services.

The HHS mandate implicitly acknowledged that an incursion into religion is involved in the mandate. However, the narrowness of the proposed exemption is revealing for it applies only to religious organizations that serve or support their own members. In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption. The so-called accommodation and the subsequent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) do little or nothing to alleviate the problem.

No government should tell religious organizations either what to believe or how to put their beliefs into practice. We indeed hold this to be an unalienable, constitutional right. If freedom of religion is a constitutional value to be protected, then institutions developed by religious groups to implement their core beliefs in education, in care for the sick or suffering, and in other tasks must also be protected. Only by doing so can the free exercise of religion have any meaning. The HHS mandate prevents this free exercise. For the well-being of our country, we oppose the application of the contraceptive mandate to religious institutions and plead for its retraction.

Sincerely yours,

Leith Anderson President National Association of Evangelicals Gary M. Benedict President The Christian and Missionary Alliance U.S. Bishop John F. Bradosky North American Lutheran Church The Most Rev. Robert J. Carlson Archbishop of St. Louis Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan Archbishop of New York President United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Mother Agnes Mary Donovan, S.V. Superior General of the Sisters of Life Sister Barbara Anne Gooding, R.S.M. Director, Department of Religion Saint Francis Health System Sister Margaret Regina Halloran, l.s.p. Provincial Superior Brooklyn Province Little Sisters of the Poor The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison President The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church Bishop, Fellowship of International Churches The Very Rev. Dr. John A. Jillions Chancellor Orthodox Church in America The Most Blessed Jonah Archbishop of Washington Metropolitan of All American and Canada Orthodox Church in America

Imam Faizul R. Khan Founder and Leader Islamic Society of Washington Area The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky Director of External Affairs and Interchurch Relations Orthodox Church in America Most Rev. William E. Lori Archbishop of Baltimore Chairman USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty Sister Maria Christine Lynch, l.s.p. Provincial Superior Chicago Province Little Sisters of the Poor Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, l.s.p. Provincial Superior Baltimore Province Little Sisters of the Poor The Rev. John A. Moldstad President Evangelical Lutheran Synod Deaconess Cheryl D. Naumann President Concordia Deaconess Conference The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez President NHCLC Hispanic Evangelical Association Sister Joseph Marie Ruessmann Generalate Secretary Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Michigan The Rev. Mark Schroeder President Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod L. Roy Taylor Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America Sister Constance Carolyn Veit, l.s.p. Communications Director Little Sisters of the Poor Dr. George O. Wood General Superintendent The General Council of the Assemblies of God

---

The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), authored and issued “Free Exercise of Religion: Putting Beliefs into Practice,” an open letter to all Americans voicing opposition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) contraceptive mandate and pleading for its retraction. Twenty-four religious leaders joined President Harrison in signing the letter, which was issued June 21, 2012.

For more information about the LCMS response to the HHS contraceptive mandate, please visit www.lcms.org/hhsmandate or call 888-THE LCMS (843-5267).

Marriage and Religious Freedom: An Open Letter

The following statement, Marriage and Religious Freedom, was issued today by leaders of some of the largest religious communities in the US, joining together in an open letter to all Americans to voice their shared concern for marriage and religious freedom. Signatories include leaders from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, and Pentecostal communities in the United States. (The Lutherans are LCMS President Matthew Harrison and NALC Bishop John Bradowski.) Below the signatures to this fine letter I'm posting the "Executive Summary." Pastor Zip

Hat tip to James Gale at ALPB Forum Online.

Marriage and Religious Freedom:

Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
pdf verson here
An Open Letter
from Religious Leaders in the United States
to All Americans
Released January 12, 2012
Dear Friends:

The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.

As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of "marriage"—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.

Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex "marriage" is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such "weddings," on pain of civil or criminal liability. While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts.

Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.

These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of "marriage" does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.

So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly "married." Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex "married" relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex "spouses." Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest—against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil "marriage" with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass.

Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits.

For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex "wedding" there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex "domestic partnerships" in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex "domestic partners" as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.

In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil "marriage" is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.

Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation.

May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious freedom.

Sincerely Yours:

Rev. Leith Anderson President National Association of Evangelicals Johann Christoph Arnold Senior Pastor Bruderhof Communities Randall A. Bach President Open Bible Churches Dr. Gary M. Benedict President The Christian and Missionary Alliance The Rev. John F. Bradosky Bishop North American Lutheran Church Glenn Burris, Jr. President The Foursquare Church Bishop H. David Burton Presiding Bishop The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Dr. Ronald W. Carpenter, Sr. Presiding Bishop International Pentecostal Holiness Church Rabbi Abba Cohen Vice President for Federal Affairs Washington Director Agudath Israel of America Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone Bishop of Oakland Chairman, USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage Nathan J. Diament Executive Director for Public Policy Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan Archbishop of New York President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Dr. Barrett Duke Vice President for Public Policy and Research Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission The Most Rev. Robert Duncan Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America Bishop, Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Rev. Jim Eschenbrenner Executive Pastor General Council of Christian Union Churches Dr. William J. Hamel President Evangelical Free Church of America Rev. Dr. Ron Hamilton Conference Minister Conservative Congregational Christian Conference Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison President Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod John Hopler Director Great Commission Churches

Dr. Bill Hossler President Missionary Church, Inc. Clyde M. Hughes General Overseer International Pentecostal Church of Christ Rev. Kenneth D. Hunn Executive Director The Brethren Church David W. Kendall Bishop Free Methodist Church USA Dr. Richard Land President Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission Most Rev. William E. Lori Bishop of Bridgeport Chairman, USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty Dr. Jo Anne Lyon Chair Board of General Superintendents The Wesleyan Church James W. Murray Executive Director General Association of General Baptists Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades Bishop of Ft. Wayne - South Bend Chairman, USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth Commissioner William A. Roberts National Commander The Salvation Army Rocky Rocholl President Fellowship of Evangelical Churches Rev. Samuel Rodriguez President National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference David T. Roller Bishop Free Methodist Church USA Matthew A. Thomas Bishop Free Methodist Church USA Dr. Joseph Tkach President & Pastor General Grace Communion International Berten A. Waggoner National Director Vineyard USA W. Phillip Whipple Bishop United Brethren in Christ Church, USA Dr. John P. Williams, Jr. Regional Director Evangelical Friends Church, North America David P. Wilson General Secretary Church of the Nazarene Dr. George O. Wood General Superintendent Assemblies of God

---

Executive Summary:

We, as representatives of a broad array of faiths, join together to affirm that marriage, the union of one man and one woman, must be promoted and protected for its own sake and for the common good. We also agree that redefining marriage will incur grave consequences, including a deleterious impact on religious liberty. Altering the definition of marriage will change not just one law but hundreds, even thousands, of laws. There will be government mandates, requiring the recognition and accommodation of so-called same-sex "marriages," that pose a critical threat to institutions and individuals who for reasons of faith and conscience will resist the law’s compulsion. Cases involving criminal and civil penalties and the denial of grants and other government benefits are already occurring and will only increase in number and severity if more jurisdictions redefine marriage. The law not only will coerce and impose disincentives, but will also teach that religious objectors must be marked as if they were bigots. We encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. May all of us work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious liberty.

Signatories come from the following communities:

Agudath Israel of America Anglican Church in North America Assemblies of God The Brethren Church Bruderhof Communities The Christian & Missionary Alliance The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Church of the Nazarene Conservative Congregational Christian Conference Evangelical Free Church of America Evangelical Friends Church, North America Fellowship of Evangelical Churches The Foursquare Church Free Methodist Church USA General Association of General Baptists General Council of Christian Union Churches Grace Communion International

Great Commission Churches International Pentecostal Church of Christ International Pentecostal Holiness Church Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod Missionary Church, Inc. National Association of Evangelicals National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference North American Lutheran Church Open Bible Churches The Salvation Army Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission United Brethren in Christ Church, USA United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Vineyard USA The Wesleyan Church

The Pastor's Call; Congregational Conflict and "Fit"

From the Rev. Peter Speckhard, Associate Editor of Forum Letter (you do subscribe, right?) and Moderator of ALPB Forum Online, with his permission. I was going to offer some context first, but I think that just distracts from his point in these thoughts offered yesterday:

[T]he idea of a good fit between congregation and pastor is part of the problem. Perhaps a pastor who irritates the congregation (or vice-versa) is the perfect fit for what God is trying to accomplish there. It goes back to the doctrine of the call. Where there is a dispute between pastor and congregation, they need to go back to what both parties vowed at the installation. If the pastor can point out that he swore in front of the whole congregation that he would teach according to the Confessions, and if he can show that the Confessions claim private confession/absolution is retained in our churches and held in highest regard, then the congregation needs to remember that he is the pastor and they swore to submit to Confessional teaching. If, however, the pastor introduces, say, Imposition of Ashes on Ash Wednesday and the congregation objects that it is too Catholic, the pastor needs to remember that it is not his church, it is not a Confessional issue, and there may be all kinds of good practices that a congregation is simply not interested in, and it is not his place to shape the congregation in his preferred image.

But if we just blame conflict on a generic "bad fit", the congregations grow further and further apart, because to a congregation a pastor will always seem like the best fit who leaves them comfortably going wherever they are going, and to a pastor a congregation will also seem like the best fit that already wants to go where he wants to lead. Instead of congregations unified within a tolerably broad but recognizable range of piety, we get one congregation with more smells and bells that Byzantium at its height (because pastors who love that are a good fit for congregations who love that) and another congregation that plays a few ditties in the coffee shop and chills out and calls it church, because they found a good fit. Nothing ever gets challenged or corrected or integrated into the larger church. Instead, we all march off in opposite directions, choosing drummers who carefully play to the rhythm of our walking. Yes, it absolutely goes without saying that teaching should be done gently. But sometimes gentle teaching and time still results in conflict.

If you want to read this in context, go here. But much of the thread is on another one of those unending disputes that are internal to the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Which is why I almost missed it. I'm glad I didn't. Pr. Speckhard serves an LCMS congregation in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and it's (young) pastors like him who boost my hopes for the future of Lutheranism in North America.

Army Chaplain Killed in Action

Distressing news from Afghanistan of the first military chaplain killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan. Hat tip to Chaplain Daniel Gard (who is also a professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne) over at ALPB Forum Online:

The official message from the Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Army through the Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Navy:

Subject: FW: CH (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

It is with my deepest sympathy and utmost respect that I announce to our Chaplain Corps that Chaplain (CPT) Dale A. Goetz was killed in action in Afghanistan on August 30, 2010 while serving as the Battalion Chaplain for 1-66th Armor Battalion, 4th Infantry Division. Dale was one of five Soldiers killed by an Improvised Explosive Device while traveling in a convoy near Kandahar Province. Chaplain Goetz is survived by his wife, Christy, and by their three sons- Landon, Caleb and Joel.

Chaplain Goetz is the first military chaplain killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan. Dale was a selfless servant of God, a devoted husband and father, a strong American patriot, and a compassionate spiritual leader whose love for Soldiers was only surpassed by his firm commitment to living his calling as a United States Army Chaplain.

Please join with me in prayer for Christy, Landon, Caleb and Joel as we mourn with them in the loss of Dale, our fellow Soldier and Unit Ministry Team member. Let us also strive to honor Dale's sacrifice with a continuing bold commitment to ensure the finest religious support and pastoral care possible for our beloved Soldiers and their Families.

May God bless the Goetz Family and the Families of all our Fallen Soldiers; and, may God bless our Army and the United States of America.

PRO DEO ET PATRIA...FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

DOUGLAS L. CARVER
Chaplain (Major General) US Army
Chief of Chaplains

Chaplain Goetz was a Baptist who served his God and his Country to the very end.

Rest eternal grant him, O Lord;
and let light perpetual shine upon him.

Pr. Jonathan Jenkins' Open Letter

ELCA Pastor Jonathan Jenkins has written the following in response to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson's latest pastoral letter, which was posted (among other places) on ALPB Forum Online.

August 28, 2010
An Open Letter to Colleagues in the ELCA:

I did not read Bp. Hanson’s pastoral letter until after my return from the Conference and the subsequent Convention of Lutheran CORE. The bishop’s letter was timed for the opening day of the conference, August 24, and expressed his opposition to the formation of the Lutheran denomination, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). “As yet another Lutheran church body forms, we must ask how this separation in the body of Christ will serve the ministry and message of reconciliation entrusted to us by God.”

This is a good question, and I would like to offer an answer. I am a pastor of the ELCA, and I attended both the conference and the convention (which were distinguished by being held in separate locations.) I wish to respond to the bishop by reporting something of what I saw and heard in Ohio.

CIVILITY AND CHRISTIAN PATIENCE
To begin with, Bishop Hanson’s letter reminds us, “We live in a world that is plagued by incivility, willful misunderstanding and hurtful caricatures of those with whom one disagrees. Let us declare that such behaviors will stop with us.” I am happy to report that a serious effort was made to do so, in Columbus.

THE ISSUE IS NOT SEX; IT’S THE WORD OF GOD.
Here is the issue: the ELCA is teaching its members to disobey the Word of God. Bishop Hanson does not seem to realize that the issue is not sexuality: “Throughout the ELCA I hear people asking, ‘Is my voice heard? Will my voice be respected as we seek together to discern God's purpose for us?’ The answer is yes. Nevertheless, people of deep faith and a desire to be part of this church wonder: Do we mean it when we say we can preach, teach and hold divergent views on sexuality and be full participants in the ELCA's life and witness? Again, the answer is yes.”

With respect, the issue is not “my” voice: it is the voice of the Lord.

The idea that the ELCA is permitted by the Lord to preach, teach, and hold two contrary views of sexual fidelity is an opinion ungrounded in Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. There is no clear word of support for this innovation from the very norms to which we are obliged to submit ourselves and our teaching, according to the ELCA Constitution.

Another pastor’s statement in similar circumstances measures the gravity of the decision of CWA2009: “Taken in its context, it falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.”

But most ELCA pastors are tired of hearing about it. They believe that “love” and “freedom” and “conscience” are norms with greater authority than words of Scripture (Genesis 1 & 2, the Ten Commandments, Mark 10:2-16, Romans 1:22-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, etc.). These words do not need to be considered, some believe, because they just don’t speak the Word of God any more. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who say such things, but I question their understanding of Lutheranism.

Perhaps “separation in the body of Christ” might “serve the ministry and message of reconciliation entrusted to us by God.” Because we do not speak the same message as it is conveyed to people today by the Spirit who speaks the Word of God in Scripture.

IT’S THE NAME OF THE FATHER.
There are and will be other issues, too, as the ELCA trusts in experience to interpret the Bible, rather than the other way around.

The new hymnal is an obstacle to reconciliation. We are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The saving power of this name is emphasized everywhere in the New Testament. For example, in John 17:11, the prayer of the Son, in the Spirit is: “Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me.” However, the name of the Father is routinely avoided in the new hymnal, Evangelical Lutheran Worship. The language of ELW is not modelled upon or disciplined by biblical ways of speaking to and for God.

IT’S EVANGELISM
Another issue is the goal of the ministry of reconciliation in a global context. Conversion is no longer the aim of global mission, accompaniment is. The ELCA Global Mission unit defines accompaniment as “walking together in solidarity that practices interdependence and mutuality” with non-Christian peoples. Traditionally, the overriding goal of the missionary was to proclaim the Gospel so that the hearers may become Christians, but that is not the stated purpose of the ELCA.

IT’S THE JUDGMENT OF GOD.
How can any of us be unmoved by Bishop Hanson’s passionate appeal to 2 Corinthians 5:14-21? “We celebrate the reconciliation from God that breaks down every dividing wall of hostility and unites humankind in the bonds of Christ. We delight in the promise of the new creation that God is bringing to life in Christ. We joyfully embrace the world and all its inhabitants in love and service. What a cause for rejoicing!” Amen!

But do we overlook verses 10 and 11? “For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we try to persuade others…” Isn’t Christ, finally, to quote the bishop, in “the sin-accounting business”? He will come again “to judge the living and the dead.”

What has happened to the preaching of the Law as an essential aspect of preaching the Gospel? For example, sexual sins (including heterosexual sins) are violations of the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 10th commandments. Is it in the interest of sinners to suggest that these are not sins that God will punish? Isn’t Christ locked out of the church, if absolution in his name is insulting to certain sinners?

God’s way of reconciling us to himself involves the preaching of the Law and the Gospel. However, Dr. H. Richard Niebuhr’s ironical analysis of preaching in the 1930’s comes too close for comfort: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

A BETTER WAY?
“Standing together, we are known as a church that rolls up its sleeves and solves problems, the church that is catalyst, convener and bridge builder,” writes Bp. Hanson. We are having a hard time living up to such a flattering self-image. It’s clear that ELCA seminaries, assemblies, missions, educational materials, and ordinations will follow the new policies. We do not, institutionally, have space in the ELCA for two different interpretations of Scripture. If traditional Lutheranism is to have a future, it is necessary to organize new seminaries, assemblies, missions, and publishers, as well as control of ordinations.

What if Bp. Hanson could say something like the following on behalf of the ELCA? “We have to admit, we are going out on a limb. We recognize that we’ve made decisions that are contrary to the way the church has historically interpreted Scripture, and we have departed from practices of the universal church. We believe, but cannot prove, that these changes are necessary for the sake of faithfulness to Christ. We ask you to have patience with us and to remain in full communion with us; but we will respect your decision to part company and will not impede it. We will do everything we possible to work with you as an ecumenical partner.”

A statement along those lines would be the best response to the bishop’s question: “As yet another Lutheran church body forms, we must ask how this separation in the body of Christ will serve the ministry and message of reconciliation entrusted to us by God.” An honorable separation would keep the wounds, deep as they are, from getting still deeper and further infected with bitterness of spirit. In this fallen and divided world, an amicable separation would be a not insignificant witness to reconciliation in Christ.

Pastor Jonathan Jenkins
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church,
Lebanon PA

Thank you, Pastor Jenkins.

Yeago: Facing Reality in the ELCA

Last Saturday some 700 Lutherans of the South Carolina Synod gathered at Newberry College for a “Day of Holy Conversation.” There Professor David S. Yeago of Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary began his presentation, "Facing Reality in the ELCA," saying:

The ELCA changed last August in more fundamental ways than perhaps we generally realize. We didn’t only adopt a social statement and two policy changes. Those actions brought about something much more momentous: they altered the very character of the Christian fellowship embodied in the ELCA and its institutions and practices.

To be blunt: since August, the ELCA is internally in a state of impaired communion. Let me be clear what that means. I am not taking the Jeremiah 51 view of the ELCA, as though the word of the Lord to us was: "Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity…" (v. 6). Impaired does not mean abolished but diminished, weakened, damaged. There is significant space between full communion and no communion; the result of the CWA actions is that there is no longer full communion, full visible Christian unity, within the ELCA.

Some years ago, in an important essay in ecumenical theology (1. notes at end), my colleague Michael Root proposed a sort of practical definition of a church-dividing difference. A difference among Christians is church-dividing, he suggested, when it prevents them from carrying out the mission of the gospel together without violation of conscience on someone’s part (2). When you and I cannot practically do the gospel-business of the church together without one of us yielding on a matter of conscience, then our differences are, in the nature of the case, "church-dividing." In this light, I think we simply have to admit that in August, the ELCA welcomed a church-dividing difference into its own common life, and is now struggling with how to contain it.

This wasn’t of course what was supposed to happen. The "official" view was that our differences over sexual morality would be non-divisive, if everyone would just be reasonable and remember that our true unity is "in Christ" and not in moral teaching. Everyone’s "bound conscience" would be respected, the sexuality issues would go away, and the ELCA could march off into a glorious future to a rousing chorus of "Lift High the Cross."

But this was never going to work. The official assessment implies that unity "in Christ" is located in some ideal realm, and need never be lived out down on the messy terrain of this world, where people live and make choices and seek for love and affection and identity, where pastors counsel anguished people and children are taught the Ten Commandments. It assumed that we could pursue the mission of the gospel without ever getting involved with questions about what constitutes a good life, without bothering with the way people live beyond, perhaps, exhorting them to have a loving attitude.

In the real world, pastors and other Christians do counsel anguished people wrestling with desire and emotional need, and doing so is not external to the mission of the gospel. In the real world, children are taught what sort of life is good and pleasing to God, and what the meaning of His commandments is. In the real world, preaching the gospel involves proclaiming in public and private what grace it is that God has given us in Christ, what strength God promises us in the struggle with the world, the flesh, and the devil. And since last August, with respect to a very significant dimension of human life, the ELCA no longer has agreement on how to do such things together. Instead we have acknowledged the legitimacy of several mutually incompatible words that might be spoken to the anguished person seeking counsel, to the child awaiting instruction in the commandments of God, to the inquirer asking what goods God gives us strength in Christ to pursue and what temptations help to resist.

As a traditionalist (3.), I have to realize that significant elements of what traditionalists would say about sexuality in those settings is regarded in good faith by other Christians in the ELCA as cruel and destructive. They could not say "Amen" to my counsel and proclamation concerning the matters at issue any more than I could say it to theirs. The ELCA has now said that these differences are to co-exist within our shared institutional framework. And to that extent, which is not at all trivial, we do not have full communion any longer, we can no longer pursue the mission of the gospel together without violating someone’s conscience.

Read it all here at the Lutherans Persisting blog. Hat tip to Pr. Paul Knudson over at ALPB Forum Online.

It's About the Teaching

On Wednesday, Lutheran CORE announced -- among several other matters -- that it "will aid in the formation of a Lutheran church body for those congregations and individuals that choose to end their affiliation with the ELCA." (No, I'm not particularly interested in that.)

Yesterday, Lutherans Concerned/North America "responded with sadness" to that announcement. Said LC/NA's Emily Eastwood, "It seems with yesterday's announcement that some ELCA Lutherans cannot even tolerate being in the same church family with congregations who accept us. Anger and fear have overtaken the great commandments from Jesus himself: to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself."

This morning on ALPB Forum Online, my brother in the Holy Ministry and friend Pr. Marshall Hahn replied more appropriately than my one-word initial reaction (note: I've added the emphasis):

People are not leaving the ELCA because they cannot stay in the same church with homosexual people. They are leaving because they cannot stay in a church which teaches error. They are leaving the ELCA because they cannot agree with blessing what they understand to be sin. Either Emily Eastwood knows this - and is mischaracterizing people on purpose - or she does not know this - and clearly is the one who has not been listening to those with whom she disagrees.

Remember that. It's about the teaching of the Church. Sounds kind of Lutheran, doesn't it.

For Hallowe'en/Reformation Day

From "BrotherBoris" on ALPB Forum Online:

"The Reformed are like vampires. They are horrified by the sign of the cross, literally run away from holy water (I wonder if it burns them?) and suck any good ceremonial out of a congregation. No wonder they dress in that dreary black robe of death. God forbid we should have something beautiful, colorful and worthy of the King of Kings like a Gold colored Chasuble or a Gold plated chalice instead of some plastic, disposable Nyquil cup for the Sacrament."

Trick or treat!!

An ELCA Confessional Crisis?

The adoption of Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (the link here is to a pdf file of the Statement as it was adopted by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, and not the version linked at this moment on the ELCA web page entitled "Adopted Social Statement") has precipitated a confessional crisis in our church, if my brother in the Holy Ministry and friend, Pastor Marshall Hahn, STS, is correct. I first saw this on ALPB Forum Online, but he also presented it at the most recent gathering of Call to Faithfulness, the Northeast Iowa Synod reform movement.

I think he's correct. But I'm wondering if the ELCA is capable of recognizing the possibility of a confessional crisis. Read it and weep.

The Confessional Crisis Created by the Decisions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly

The decisions surrounding human sexuality made at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly have created a confessional crisis within the ELCA. The controversy over these decisions is not simply a disagreement over a social issue concerning how to treat homosexual relations in the church. These decisions touch upon the issues of the authority of Scripture and the role of the Lutheran Confessions in the life of the church.

The crisis these decisions have created can be shown by examining two crucial passages from the Social Statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. In Part IV (lines 620 - 628 in the Pre-Assembly Report) this statement reads:

The historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions have recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6-9: "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one put asunder." (Jesus here recalls Genesis 1:27; 2:23-24.)

On the next page of the statement, (lines 740 - 744, as amended) it reads:

Recognizing that this conclusion differs from the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions, some people, though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships.

The statement then goes on to treat these two positions and the variants within them as of equal validity, on the basis of the "conscience-bound beliefs" of those who hold them (lines 809 - 868). Moreover, it is on this same basis of the "conscience-bound lack of consensus in this church" (lines 452 - 453 of the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies) that the resolutions on ministry policies were recommended and adopted.

These actions are contrary to and done in violation of the ELCA Confession of Faith, which reads, in part:

Chapter 2
CONFESSION OF FAITH
.
.
2.03  This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm or its proclamation, faith, and life.

2.04  This church accepts the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as true declarations of the faith of this church.

2.05  This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledges as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

2.06  This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church.

The Social Statement and the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies present the two positions mentioned above as of equal validity in the church, even though it is admitted that the first position - namely, that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman - is the position supported by Christian tradition, the Lutheran Confessions, and Scripture; and that the second position - namely, that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships - differs from the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions.

Given the confessional and constitutional commitment of the ELCA to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions noted above, once a position is identified as that of the Confessions and the Christian tradition based on Scripture, there should be only two options for a Social Statement of the ELCA:

1. State that such is the position of the ELCA, based on our Confession of Faith, which commits us to the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the witness of the Lutheran Confessions; or,


2. Demonstrate, by an appeal to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and with the aid of sound reason, that such a position ought to be abandoned or, at the least, present evidence enough to raise serious questions about that position.

Likewise, once a position has been identified as differing from the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions, there should be only two options for a Social Statement of the ELCA:

1. Reject such a position on the basis of our Confession of Faith, which commits us to following the witness of the Lutheran Confessions; or,


2. Demonstrate, by an appeal to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and with the aid of sound reason, that such a position ought to be adopted or, at the least, present evidence enough to argue that it ought to be considered a valid position within the Lutheran Church.

However, the Social Statement does none of these. It does not present a compelling argument based on Scripture, the Confessions, and sound reason for overturning the stated position on marriage. Neither does it present a compelling argument based on Scripture, the Confessions and sound reason for adopting this alternate position. It does not even attempt to do this. It simply states that within the church there are differing opinions on the matter, and treats both opinions as equally valid. In doing so, it fails to honor our confessional and constitutional commitment to the Holy Scriptures as "the authoritative source and norm of [our] proclamation, faith, and life" and treats the witness of the Lutheran Confessions as a matter of indifference.

Such actions are in violation of our Confession of Faith. The ELCA ought to repent of these actions, take steps to render them ineffectual, and overturn them at the first opportunity. The synods and congregations of the ELCA ought to reject these actions and refuse to abide by them on the basis of our own and identical Confession of Faith. Each pastor in the ELCA ought to oppose these actions and decisions on the basis of the vows taken at ordination to teach and preach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and in light of the Lutheran Confessions.

If such actions are not taken, it leaves those who oppose the actions of the Churchwide Assembly in a state of confessional resistance to the ELCA, and possibly to the synods of which they are members. Appeals to unity and "churchmanship" are of secondary importance to the confessional commitment which undergirds this opposition. Even if one were to make a compelling argument from Scripture and the Confessions in support of the changes in ministry policies at this point, such an argument must also acknowledge and repent of the violation of our Confession of Faith which the actions of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly have committed. If these actions are allowed to stand, it will undermine the very Confession of Faith by which we are united.

Pastor Marshall Hahn
St. Olaf Lutheran Parish - Marion & Norway Lutheran Churches
St. Olaf, Iowa
NE Iowa Synod, ELCA

A Free Synod?

Lots of questions about this from Bishop Spring's latest letter about the Lutheran CORE Convocation:

A free-standing synod, carrying out synodical ministries, apart from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Here is how I understand it, as I posted on ALPB Forum Online. Note, this is not definitive, but it is what I understand and will advocate at the Convocation.

Our problem as 21st century American Lutherans is that we hear the word "synod" and immediately think "denomination" or, worse, a sub-division of a denomination or "judicatory."

A "synod" is a gathering of pastors and congregations. That's it. A gathering of pastors and congregations for a particular purpose. "Synod Assembly" is like "The La Brea Tar Pits" (forgive the Southern California reference; it's a major historical site in Los Angeles: "la brea" is Spanish for "the tar pits").

If we wanted to be really precise about it, we could call the Convocation itself a "free synod," that is, a gathering that is open to anyone interested in the purpose of the gathering. It is "free" because it is not associated with, in this case any official gathering of the church.

So, a Free Synod of ELCA pastors and congregations is a gathering of ELCAers separate from the formal structures of the ELCA for a particular purpose -- in this case to provide support for those pastors and congregations in the ELCA who are conscience bound, by Scripture and Confession, to reject the errors of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly and the ELCA's leadership.

That "support" happens primarily at the Free Synod, that is the gathering (something we seem to be forgetting of our ELCA synods), but since it must be on-going support (until the ELCA repents of its error) the Free Synod will likely have some sort of continuing existence to co-ordinate relationships with various ministries and missions, to provide common suggestions for alternatives to the anti-Gospel portions of the ELCA (such as curricula that will portray gay "families" or a pastor's "partner" as just another option, or liturgical/prayer resources that neuter the Lord God or emasculate the risen Christ, etc.).

A Free Synod within the ELCA enables those of us who reject the CWA's actions to stay together in mission to live out the mission that brought us together in the first place, the mission expressed in the Constitution of the ELCA, its synods, and congregations. (See my "Why Stay?," originally posted on this online forum, for why we want to do that.) A Free Synod of faithful ELCA folks would call upon the ELCA to return to its stated purpose. The CWA's actions specifically provide for our voice to be there, and we should challenge the ELCA's leaders to be true to their word is every way we can, and that challenge includes participating as fully as possible in official ELCA, synod, conference, etc. activities. (So, yes, it challenges us, too.)

Why Stay in the ELCA?

The following is slightly edited from comments I posted Monday night (as I was decompressing from our adult Vacation Bible School) in response to a frustrated layman's question on ALPB Forum Online.

Why Stay?

Why would a Traditionalist ELCAer still desire to stay in the ELCA for the long term?

For this Traditionalist, part of it is having been steeped from childhood in the Muhlenberg vision of one Evangelical Lutheran church with one liturgy in this one nation. In spite of her deep flaws, in spite of her almost total amnesia of why she came into being in the first place (yes, that same Muhlenberg vision), the ELCA still represents the the fullest grasp of that worthy goal. No other Lutheran Church has this catholic perspective on the (what the sainted Arthur Carl Piepkorn called) Church of the Augsburg Confession as an integral part of its DNA.

Yes, there are many in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod who get it, and who work to lift up that catholic vision for the Church of the Augsburg Confession -- they have been, in fact, indespensible to the modern articulation of that vision (beginning with Piepkorn, but continuing with others, including those associated with the ALPB). But despite their efforts, it has never been Missouri's vision and it is one that, given the opportunity, she keeps rejecting. As long as she views the Lutheran church through the eyes of C. F. W. Walther (as important as he is to the American recovery of Luther in the American Lutheran churches), she will at heart be sectarian. And in none of the other Lutheran churches in the US is this vision a significant factor in that church's life, except in a few tiny ones that are all vision, but no real church.

Yes, the ELCA has been overrun by sectarians in her pulpits, seminaries, and offices, and by the actions and inactions of Churchwide Assemblies has now herself taken on the characteristics of a sect. I am not yet convinced, however, that this necessarily need be a permanent state.

One of Pr. Stoffregen's frequent challenges to the traditionalists who post here and elsewhere is to quote the Statement of Faith from the ELCA's Constitution and ask, "Where it is in error?" I read (present tense) the Statement of Faith and -- as in the mid-1980s when it was proposed in its final form, and as in my seminary days when I would wonder if this was truly the right church to ordain me -- I see nothing there that I would want to change. Why, then, should I leave this church? It is those who no longer teach and believe that faith -- the genuine schismatics -- who ought to either repent or leave.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of Pastors who have not bended their knee to Ba'al. There are Synod Bishops and Synod Councils that remain faithful, and others who, while not in total agreement, are willing, even eager, to have solid, confessional Pastors serving in their synods.

The faculty and leadership of at least one ELCA seminary, Southern, remains largely in touch with the ELCA's Statement of Faith and a catholic (rather than protestant sectarian) Evangelical Lutheranism. I should think we should approach LTSS about being an orthodox refuge with a missionary impulse to spread about the ELCA -- even if, like those early Anglo-Catholics, it is to serve in undesirable, difficult circumstances. This could be one fine place to redirect a portion of a congregation's benevolence (mission support).

This Traditionalist rejects the vision that a church body ought to be viewed as a "voluntary organization" that people choose or not choose to join. That is a Puritan, American denominationalist perspective which is at odds with the ecclesiology of the Lutheran Confessions -- if not, alas, so many American Lutherans both in and out of the ELCA.

Finally, the blessed Dr. Martin Luther did not leave the Church that called and ordained him into the Office of the Holy Ministry. Nor did he take any steps to do so until her then-corrupt leadership threw him out -- largely because his faithfulness was exposing their corruption.


I've been threatening to stay for all these years because I really do want to stay. If I were to leave the ELCA, it would be as a reluctant exile, a temporary (I would hope) refugee. One who (aware that the break-up of the General Synod would not be repaired until the formation of the United Lutheran Church of America some 50 years later) would be eager to return home as soon as those who have usurped the ELCA's vision and destroyed the Ministerium are overthrown by their collaborators who, having chosen to get along and not speak up, discover their error and aim to repair it.

Or in the disappointing conviction that the Evangelical Lutheran experiment in this land (one of a Calvinist mindset, though now almost completely secularized, even amongst Christians) has failed.

Pax et bonum, Steven+

"Perhaps the Church has erred..."

Last Thursday morning over at the pan-Lutheran ALPB Forum Online, in a discussion following a letter from Bishop Nicholas Tai of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hong Kong to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson and ELCA "Colleagues in ministry" concerning the sexuality proposals before the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, the well-known (in American Lutheran circles) retired pastor-journalist Charles Austin asked,

Does anyone entertain the thought that the Church may have erred? That even if one argues for an unbroken viewpoint (difficult to do, given some blank spots in human history), might it be that this viewpoint was wrong?

That afternoon I replied:

Yes, I have entertained the thought that the Church may have erred. After all, as Lutherans we hold as a matter of confession that Councils of the Church can err, so it isn't much of a stretch to suggest that an issue that has not been directly addressed by a Council of the Church could still be unclear for Christians.

Whether the Church could have erred and whether the Church is erring in declaring homosexual relationships, regardless of their qualities, as being contrary to God's will is another matter still. Here is where I am relying on 2 independent sorts of examinations:

1) My own, which started long before I was willing to become a seminarian because the particulars of the issue were very personal. I continued the examination while a seminarian at institutions whose teachers were frequently on record as teaching that the Church had erred, but found their arguments wanting. Occasionally creative. Alas, sometimes a bit too creative with verifiable history. None came close to convincing me -- as one who very much wanted to be convinced. My own examination continued in concert with...

2) The ELCA's examinations, predominantly through the sexuality studies leading up to the infamous First Draft of 1993 and the sexuality studies that have led to proposals for the CWA less than 4 weeks from now. Examinations that have had as available resources every single one of the theological minds of the ELCA and beyond.

Now, I will admit here that even before the charge of the 2001 CWA, I had been convinced by my own examination, by the theological conversations (formal and informal) while in seminary, and by the conversations that ensued through the debates within the ELCA, ECUSA, etc. of the 1990s that there was indeed no sustainable argument for changing the Church's teaching that all homosexual relationships are, regardless of other qualities, ipso facto sinful. This theological judgment was contrary to my desires, but my theological/pastoral conscience is bound to something other than my desires.

Nevertheless, I had hopes that, since every possible theological resource would be available to the ELCA Task Force, if anyone could offer such a sustainable argument, they would. I participated in all the studies. I read through all the official materials. I participated in many discussions.

And in the end, they offered no argument at all. They have given us assertions that cover the "sides" in the debate over the place of homosexuality in the Church, but there is no argument made for changing the Church's teaching on homosexuality anywhere to be found in the Report and Recommendations or the proposed Sexuality Statement.

In the end of nearly 8 years of work, given the chance to show that the Church's teaching has been wrong, having the best and brightest minds of the ELCA at their disposal, they did not even try.

And, I will note, in all the on-line discussions I've been in with you over 16 years, neither have you. It is always, "Some people believe...."

Now there may be some churches where such statements hold theological weight. If the ELCA is one of them, it has betrayed our Confession of Faith.

I'm not from Missouri, Charles. Nevertheless, show me, and I'll gladly change my mind. Otherwise, my conscience is bound by the Word of God, not my own desires. Here I stand. Until convinced otherwise by the Word and reason, I can do no other.

Pax et bonum, Steven+

Late that evening, another ALPB Forum Online participant (from the Missouri Synod) in expressing his thanks for what I had written pointed out "that it took Charles to bring that out." I disagreed Friday afternoon:

I do want to observe that what I wrote above was nothing that I haven't written already -- here or elsewhere -- or that I've not stood up and spoken out loud, several times over the last months.

[Most recently just a few weeks ago from the floor of our Synod Assembly. It is hard to say anything well in the 2 minutes we are allowed to speak, but a least a couple of people got my point.]

This is not even the first time that Charles (or Brian S., or other persons noted for "making people think through the pastoral consequences of the positions we hold") has drawn this out of me. Or out of others who have said similar things. Please also notice the response from those who, uh, provoke such testimony. Nothing. Silence.

And yet it also takes no prophet inspired by any sort of spirit, Holy or otherwise, to predict that, soon, Charles, Brian, and/or some other advocate of sexual revisionism will once again smugly comment as if I (or some other "sexual traditionalist" for whom this particular discussion is deeply personal) had never said a thing, as if we had hidden in a closet throughout the last 2 decades. Because they've all done it, repeatedly, since they adopted their current perspective.

It's part of why I've found the very title of the proposed Social Statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, so hypocritical before I'd finished its second page.

[Note: see my "...Gift and Trust" blog entry from last April.]

And sure enough, by Saturday evening such a smug comment was posted.

Homosexual Relationships: Has the Church Erred?

[Note: the following was actually appended to this blog on 1 March 2012; it is a repost of this post of mine over on the "Asian Lutherans Respond" thread at ALPB Forum Online at the end of July 2009. The context, as one can see from that second link) is a letter to the ELCA Presiding Bishop from the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hong Kong regarding the recommendations to provide for the ordination of those in same-sex relationship. It began with a question, to which I responded. It got a good reponse, so I place it here for posterity. (Vanity of vanities?) And we'll learn if it shows up currently on my blog feeds on Facebook, Twitter, and at Peoria.com. spt+]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Quote from: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2009, 09:57:31 AM

I raise the question again, just for fun.
Does anyone entertain the thought that the Church may have erred? That even if one argues for an unbroken viewpoint (difficult to do, given some blank spots in human history), might it be that this viewpoint was wrong?

My "just for fun" response, Charles, would be one you are wont to use on this forum: "asked and answered."

However, I shan't leave it at that, since this question stopped being "fun" a long, long time ago. With all due seriousness:

Yes, I have entertained the thought that the Church may have erred. After all, as Lutherans we hold as a matter of confession that Councils of the Church can err, so it isn't much of a stretch to suggest that an issue that has not been directly addressed by a Council of the Church could still be unclear for Christians.

Whether the Church could have erred and whether the Church is erring in declaring homosexual relationships, regardless of their qualities, as being contrary to God's will is another matter still. Here is where I am relying on 2 independent sorts of examinations:

1) My own, which started long before I was willing to become a seminarian because the particulars of the issue were very personal. I continued the examination while a seminarian at institutions whose teachers were frequently on record as teaching that the Church had erred, but found their arguments wanting. Occasionally creative. Alas, sometimes a bit too creative with verifiable history. None came close to convincing me -- as one who very much wanted to be convinced. My own examination continued in concert with...

2) The ELCA's examinations, predominantly through the sexuality studies leading up to the infamous First Draft of 1993 and the sexuality studies that have led to proposals for the CWA less than 4 weeks from now. Examinations that have had as available resources every single one of the theological minds of the ELCA and beyond.

Now, I will admit here that even before the charge of the 2001 CWA, I had been convinced by my own examination, by the theological conversations (formal and informal) while in seminary, and by the conversations that ensued through the debates within the ELCA, ECUSA, etc. of the 1990s that there was indeed no sustainable argument for changing the Church's teaching that all homosexual relationships are, regardless of other qualities, ipso facto sinful. This theological judgment was contrary to my desires, but my theological/pastoral conscience is bound to something other than my desires.

Nevertheless, I had hopes that, since every possible theological resource would be available to the ELCA Task Force, if anyone could offer such a sustainable argument, they would. I participated in all the studies. I read through all the official materials. I participated in many discussions.

And in the end, they offered no argument at all. They have given us assertions that cover the "sides" in the debate over the place of homosexuality in the Church, but there is no argument made for changing the Church's teaching on homosexuality anywhere to be found in the Report and Recommendations or the proposed Sexuality Statement.

In the end of nearly 8 years of work, given the chance to show that the Church's teaching has been wrong, having the best and brightest minds of the ELCA at their disposal, they did not even try.

And, I will note, in all the on-line discussions I've been in with you over 16 years, neither have you. It is always, "Some people believe...."

Now there may be some churches where such statements hold theological weight. If the ELCA is one of them, it has betrayed our Confession of Faith.

I'm not from Missouri, Charles. Nevertheless, show me, and I'll gladly change my mind. Otherwise, my conscience is bound by the Word of God, not my own desires. Here I stand. Until convinced otherwise by the Word and reason, I can do no other.

Pax et bonum, Steven+

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =[Responses begin here.]

Murder in the Church

I first learned about the murder of Dr. George Tiller early yesterday afternoon on while looking at ALPB Forum Online. Mine was a terrible sinking feeling, partly because this happened in the Narthex of a sister ELCA congregation, where Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher as the congregation was preparing for worship on one of the holiest of Christian holy days, Pentecost -- the 50th Day of Easter and the celebration of the coming of the Holy Spirit.

What, then, should a Lutheran Pastor say in this sort of situation? The best I've seen so far is this letter to the editor posted by three Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod pastors in northwest Wisconsin. As you read it, please do so with the same careful attention with which it was clearly written.

There is an old saying: Two wrongs don’t make a right. This does not appear in the Bible but it certainly reflects a scriptural idea. This concept, that two wrongs don’t make a right, is certainly true in the case of the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

Dr. Tiller was an infamous abortionist, who was one of the very few in the country who would perform late-term abortions. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is strongly pro-life, and condemns the practice of abortion. Dr. Tiller, a former member of a Missouri Synod congregation, was excommunicated by that congregation for his abortion practice. (The congregation he was currently attending is part of another Lutheran body.) We stand by that action. Our sister congregation acted properly in disciplining Dr. Tiller. Such action is always intended to lead a person to see their sins and come to repentance. Excommunication is never intended to bring that person harm.

While we condemn Dr. Tiller’s actions as an abortionist, we just as strongly condemn the actions of the person who took his life. Murder, even of a murderer, is never acceptable. God teaches us in Romans 13 and other places, that the government is in place to enforce justice. We are never to take private vengeance. This is simply not given to private individuals. Murder in any circumstances is a grievous sin. It was our utmost desire that Dr. Tiller come to repentance, and perhaps in time he may have. We do not know. Only God sees all ends. Sadly, because of this heinous act of violence, Dr. Tiller no longer has that opportunity.

Rev. Jody R. Walter, pastor LCMS
Immanuel, Frederic

Rev. David Emmons, pastor LCMS
Zion, Turtle Lake/Immanuel, Clayton

Rev. Mark Schoen, pastor LCMS
Shepherd of the Valley, St. Croix Falls

There's a whole lot of careful theology and pastoral care in those 3 brief paragraphs. There will be more to say later on, but in the heat of the moment, these Lutheran pastors have said what needed to be said, no more and no less.

Open Letter to Churchwide Assembly Voters

The following Open Letter to the Voting Members of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly from a group of about 60 ELCA theologians and other leaders assembled by Lutheran CORE appeared briefly last week on ALPB Forum Online (and on this blog) but was then withheld in order to honor an official release today. I'm also appending below a cover letter from Prof. Bob Benne from last week which says a bit more about its background.

	An Open Letter to the Voting Members of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly
	We are grateful that the church has called you to serve as a voting member for the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. Your role at the assembly will be a difficult one. We are writing this open letter as Lutheran theologians and church leaders concerned about the fidelity and future of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
The proposals are in fact no compromise   The teaching of the church will be changed	The proposals to be considered by the Churchwide Assembly this summer from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality are perceived by some as compromises that will permit the ELCA to live faithfully with internal diversity on controversial ethical questions. The proposals are in fact no compromise. They clearly imply that same-sex blessings and the ordination and rostering of homosexual persons in committed relationships are acceptable within the ELCA. The teaching of the church will be changed. We should not make such an important decision without clear biblical and theological support. The Task Force did not provide such support, nor has it been provided in statements from some of our colleagues in ELCA institutions.
Indifference to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church	1. If the assembly adopts the proposed rules of procedure, a simple majority of one Churchwide Assembly will alter the moral teaching on sexuality we have shared with the vast majority of the church past and present. We are concerned that such a procedure shows an indifference to the common mind of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church throughout the ages and across cultures. At the least, a two-thirds majority should be required, if indeed the assembly should be voting on these matters at all.
The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel	2. The proposals claim that the ELCA can live with profound differences on sexual questions because our unity is centered exclusively on the gospel and the sacraments. This claim separates law and gospel in a way contrary to both Scripture and the Confessions. The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel. The Task Force texts seem to permit variation on all ethical questions, no matter how fundamental. How Christians behave sexually is not a matter of indifference to our life in Christ.
It would damage our ecumenical relationships	3. If the ELCA were to approve the public recognition of same-sex unions or the rostering of persons in such relationships, it would damage our ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and Evangelical churches, all of which affirm the clear teaching of Scripture that homosexual activity departs from God’s design for marriage and sexuality. Furthermore, it would put the ELCA at odds with many of our sister Lutheran churches, especially in Asia and Africa. The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have also recently upheld scriptural teaching on this matter. These bodies have officially recognized that the biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity remain applicable today to consensual sexual relationships between persons of the same sex.
Our unity will be fractured	4. With regard to calling rostered leaders, the statement proposes “structured flexibility,” which we believe will lead inevitably to “local option.” If adopted, this proposal will mean that the relationship among bishops, candidacy committees, and congregations will become confused and conflicted. Practically speaking, there will be two lists of candidates for rostered leadership in the church. The result will be that not all pastors and congregations will be in full fellowship with each other, nor with many of the pastors and congregations of those denominations with whom we are in full communion. Further, laity seeking a congregation to join would need to ask about which option a congregation has chosen in calling its leaders. Our unity in the office of ministry will be fractured.
Conscience can err	5. The social statement calls for opponents in the current controversy to respect each other’s “bound conscience,” referring to Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. Luther, however, was not merely claiming that he was sincere about the convictions he held; he asserted rather that his conscience was bound to the Word of God. Conscience can err. The Word of God, not conscience, is the final court of appeal in the church.
	We are deeply sensitive to the need of the church to provide pastoral care for all people. We are aware that there are some in the church who will disagree with this letter. Nevertheless, we feel we are called to support and advocate the biblical teaching on human sexuality. We pledge to you our prayers and we invite you to work with us for the renewal of our church under the Word of God.

Rev. Richard Bansemer, Salem, VA, former Bishop, Virginia Synod


Dr. Robert D. Benne, Director of the Center for Religion and Society, Roanoke College, VA


Rev. John C. Beem, Miltona, MN, former Bishop, East-Central Synod of Wisconsin


Rev. Dr. Paul S. Berge, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN


Rev. Dr. Dennis D. Bielfeldt, Professor of Religion, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD


Rev. Dr. Carl E. Braaten,  Professor Emeritus, Systematic Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago


Rev. Mark C. Chavez, Landisville, PA, Director of Lutheran CORE


Rev. Dr. James R. Crumley, Jr, Chapin, SC, Former Bishop, Lutheran Church in America


Rev. Jaynan Clark Egland, Nine Mile Falls, WA, President, WordAlone Network


Rev. Dr. C. Jack Eichhorst, President emeritus, Trinity Lutheran College, WA


Dr. Rebecca Frey, New Haven, CT, Lutheran Forum Editorial Staff


Rev. Gregory P. Fryer, Immanuel Lutheran Church, New York, MY


Gracia M. Grindal, Professor of Rhetoric, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN


Mr. David J. Hardy, Esq., Chicago, IL, Former General Counsel of the ELCA


Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, Jr., Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN


Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, III, Menomonie, WI


Rev. Dr. Mary Havens, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Prof. of Church History, Columbia, SC


Rev. Carol S. Hendrix, former bishop, Lower Susquehanna Synod, PA


Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand, Professor of Religion, Duke University, NC


Rev. Dr. Paul R. Hinlicky, Professor of Religion, Roanoke College, VA


Rev. Dr. Stephen J. Hultgren, Assistant Professor of Religion, Fordham University, Bronx, NY


Rev. Dr. Robert W. Jenson, Princeton, NJ


Ben Arlen Johnson, Th.D., Professor emeritus, Lutheran Bible Institute in California


Rev. Dr. Richard O. Johnson, Grass Valley, CA, Editor of Forum Letter


Rev. Corinne R. Johnson, Crystal Falls, MI


Rev. Ralph A. Kempski, Aiken, SC, Bishop Emeritus, Indiana-Kentucky Synod


Rev. Dr. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA


Rev. Gerard H. Knoche, Bishop, Delaware-Maryland Synod


Rev. Dr. Marc Kolden, Professor Emeritus, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN


Rev. Dr. David W. Lotz, Washburn Professor Emeritus of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY


Rev. Dr. Lamontte Luker, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC


Rev. Dr. Paul V. Martinson, Professor Emeritus of Missions, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN


Rev. Dr. Mark C. Mattes, Professor of Religion, Grand View College, Des Moines, IA


Rev. George P. Mocko, Bishop Emeritus, Delaware-Maryland Synod


Rev. Dr. James A. Nestingen, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN


Rev. Richard J. Niebanck III, Delhi, NY


Rev. Dr. Oliver K. Olson, Minneapolis, MN


Rev. Dr. Steven D. Paulson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN


Rev. Dr. David W. Preus, Minneapolis, MN, Former Bishop, American Lutheran Church


Dr. Michael Root, Dean, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC


Rev. Dr. Paul E. Rorem, Professor of Church History, Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ 


Rev. Russell E. Saltzman, Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, MO


Rev. Kenneth H. Sauer, Columbus, OH, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops


Rev. Dr. James A. Scherer, Professor Emeritus, Missions and Church History, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago


Rev. Dr. Amy Schifrin, Hershey, PA


Rev. Paul A. Schreck, Round Lake Beach, IL, former Executive Assistant to the Secretary, ELCA


Rev. Henry Schulte Jr, Boerne, TX, former Bishop, Southwestern Texas Synod


Rev. Frederick J. Schumacher, Manchester Township, NJ, Executive Director, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau


Rev. Dr. Hans Schwarz, Professor of Systematic Theology and Contemporary Theological Issues, University of Regensburg, Germany


Rev. Dr. Frank Senn, Immanuel Lutheran Church, Evanston, IL


Rev. Dr. Franklin Sherman, Schnecksville, PA


Rev. Dr. Trygve R. Skarsten, Pickerington, OH, President Emeritus of Trinity Lutheran College, Everett, WA


Rev. Paull E. Spring, State College, PA, Former Bishop, Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod


Rev. Dr. John R. Stumme, Chicago, IL, former Director of the Department for Studies in the Church in Society unit of the ELCA


Rev. Dr. Anders Tune, Campus Minister, Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH


Rev. Paul M. Werger, Iowa City, IA, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops


Rev. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, Associate Research Professor, Institute for Ecumenical Research, Strasbourg, France


Dr. David S. Yeago, Professor of Systematic Theology, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC


Rev. Dr. J. Larry Yoder, Professor and Director, Center for Theology, Lenoir-Rhyne University, Hickory, NC

You can find other signators here and add your own signature, too. Meanwhile, here's a copy of last week's cover letter from Prof. Benne, which reads...

Dear friends,

Two weeks ago a group of theologians and church leaders convened by the Lutheran Coalition for Reform (CORE) met in Arizona to develop a letter to voting members of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly of 2009. It is a letter appealing to the voting members to reject the Social Statement on Sexuality and the accompanying four recommendations. I have attached that letter. That letter is in the process of being sent out. At the same time it is being released to many persons and agencies within and outside the church. Soon it will be posted in a number of places for more people to sign on. (Check the CORE website or the WordAlone website if you wish to sign on.) Around 50 theologians and church leaders have already signed it and we expect many more supporters to sign on. We think the letter is persuasive and that the key theologians of the ELCA have affirmed it. We hope it is persuasive to you.

Sincerely,
Bob Benne